These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Trabecular Metal Versus Non-Trabecular Metal Acetabular Components and the Risk of Re-Revision Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.
    Author: Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW, Pandit HG.
    Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2018 Jul 05; 100(13):1132-1140. PubMed ID: 29975265.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that Trabecular Metal (TM)-coated acetabular components may reduce implant failure following revision total hip arthroplasty. However, these studies have predominantly been limited to small, single-center cohorts, with many lacking a comparator group. Using National Joint Registry data from England and Wales, we compared re-revision rates following revision total hip arthroplasty between TM and non-TM-coated acetabular components from 1 manufacturer. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all revision total hip arthroplasties performed with use of 1 of 4 cementless acetabular components produced by the same manufacturer (Zimmer Biomet). The acetabular components either had a TM surface coating (TM Modular and Continuum designs) or a non-TM surface coating (Trilogy and Trilogy IT designs). Revision total hip arthroplasties with TM and non-TM implants were matched for multiple potential patient and surgical confounding factors using propensity scores. Outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty (re-revision for all acetabular indications, aseptic acetabular loosening, or infection) were compared between matched groups using competing risk regression analysis. Analyses were repeated in a subgroup initially revised for infection. RESULTS: Of 3,862 matched revision total hip arthroplasties (1,931 in the TM group and 1,931 in the non-TM group), the overall prevalence of acetabular re-revision (2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1% to 3.2%), re-revision for aseptic acetabular loosening (0.96%; 95% CI = 0.68% to 1.3%), and re-revision for infection (1.4%; 95% CI = 1.0% to 1.8%) were low. Six-year rates of re-revision for all causes (subhazard ratio [SHR] = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.61 to 1.35; p = 0.636), aseptic acetabular loosening (SHR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.68 to 2.53; p = 0.410), and infection (SHR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.20; p = 0.165) were similar between revision total hip arthroplasties with TM and non-TM coatings. Of 247 total hip arthroplasties initially revised for infection (116 TM and 131 non-TM), the rates of re-revision for all causes (SHR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.15 to 1.56; p = 0.225), aseptic acetabular loosening (SHR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.05 to 5.74; p = 0.608), and infection (SHR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.28 to 2.36; p = 0.706) were similar between the TM and non-TM groups. CONCLUSIONS: Following revision total hip arthroplasty, TM-coated acetabular components had a low risk of both aseptic and septic re-revision, with rates that were comparable with those of non-TM components. Extended follow-up of large revision total hip arthroplasty cohorts will establish whether TM components have any clinical benefit over non-TM designs when used in patients with similar acetabular bone stock. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]